PRATIMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner is opposing the appointment of respondent no.6, Bela Mahto as Aaangan Bari Sevika of one Kochakulhi Aanganbari center of village Lanka alleging that she does not belong to the Tola and the feeding area. More over the villagers have also objected to her appointment. It is to be noted at the outset which has emerged from the submission of the petitioner that she is daughter-in-law of one Kalewar Mahato and the respondent no.6 is the daughter of the same Kalewar Mahato. The selection of the respondent no.6 was done on the basis of the Aam Sabha held in the village Lanka on 20.9.2010 to select Aanganbari Sevika for the center Lanka-1 which had been rendered vacant on the death of the previous incumbent, who happened to be the mother of respondent no. 6. The Aam Sabha considered the candidature of about six candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 w/o Madhusudan Mahato also like the petitioner belongs to the Backward Community with a qualification of Intermediate in Science having age of 21 years on the date of Aam Sabha. Petitioner, W/o Shasankar Mahato has qualification of Intermediate in Arts with 3rd division and her age is also 22 years on the date of Aam Sabha. Aam Sabha proposed to recommend the selection of Respondent no.6 as she was having 219 marks out of 500 in her Intermediate Science examination while the petitioner was having 203 marks out of 500 in her Intermediate Arts examination. The center for which the selection process was initiated was Lanka-1 as aforesaid and the village Lanka as a whole has three centers i.e. Lanka- 1, 2 and 3. It is borne out from Annexure-b to the counter affidavit that later on, on account of instances where beneficiaries of one center were either left out or certain beneficiaries obtained the benefit twice because of description of different centers as Lanka- 1, 2 and 3, with the consent of the Public representatives of panchayat of 3 centers, Sevikas, Female Supervisor and Child Development Project Officer, Chandankiyari, Bokaro the distribution of the beneficiaries was done by letter no.14 dated 4.1.2012 against the three centers, Lanka- 1, 2 and 3 by allocating three Tolas i.e. Sharkulhi, Uperkulhi and Kalindi Tola in Lanka-1; whole Lanka Toladih basti in Lanka-2 and Kochakulhi, Kathalkulhi, Mundakulhi, Karmakar Tola under Lanka-3. The whole controversy however is being raked up by the petitioner with an allegation, based upon some support from her father-in-law as well, as would appear from different report annexed to the counter affidavit dated 14.2.2011,26.5.2011 and 14.6.2011 etc and other documents that the respondent no.6 does not belong to the beneficiary village or feeding area of Lanka-1 center.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even the Aam Sabha recommended the name of respondent no.6 on adhoc basis pending result of objection on the question of survey report of the beneficiaries. He further substantiated his contention by referring to the order of Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro dated 30.9.2010, Annexure-2 and appointment letter vide memo no. 432 dated 12.10.2010 issued from the Office of C.D.P.O, Chandankiyari, Bokaro, Annexure-3 that appointment of respondent no.6 was provisional subject to detection of any irregularity or lacuna in the beneficiary areas of the said center. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on representation made by several villagers, the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari on 7.7.2012(Annexure-6) reported the matter to the Deputy Development Commissioner that Kuchkulhi had a different electoral list while Lankadih Tola has different electoral list and the centers are also separate. Perusal of the said report indicates that during the course of inquiry, it was found that family members of respondent no.6, Bela Mahato are included in the electoral list of Lanka Village and that the selected candidate Bela Mahato name finds place in the survey list of Kuchkulhi Tola center. This has enthused the petitioner to question the selection of respondent no.6 as Sevika of Lanka -1 center on the ground that she does not belong to the beneficiary area of said center.